Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Rajinikanth filmography/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC).

Rajinikanth filmography

 * Nominator(s): Kailash29792 (talk), &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 09:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Rajinikanth is arguably the biggest 'Superstar' in Indian cinema. His body of work encompasses 170-odd films across seven languages. He has been in the industry for over 40 years, and is among India's highest paid actors in the last two decades. The previous nomination was archived due to inactivity. Should things go well, the list shall appear on the main page on 12 December (coinciding with the actor's 66th birthday)! Look forward to comments and suggestions. &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 09:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The list looks fine to me and better than the previous attempt. Three issues however.
 * Comments from Pavanjandhyala
 * "...and the Telugu film Chilakamma Cheppindi, in which he played a lead role for the first time in his career." Source?
 * "Rajinikanth played a Malaysian Tamil crime boss in Kabali, which had the biggest weekend opening for an Indian film and went on to become the second-highest grossing Tamil film of all time." Again, source?
 * So many green links and two blue links. Please fix them. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * All done. Thanks for the comments. &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 09:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Support Good. All the best! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 14:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Support, but I think Note a should be changed to "Also producer" and note e should be changed to "Character's full name: Ranoji Rao Shivaji Rao Gaekwad Jadichmul Arjun Thange".--Deoliveirafan (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – While reading the list, I noticed several links to full-length YouTube videos spread throughout. Are they are okay to have in the article from a legal standpoint? If they're copyvios from some random YouTube poster, then we can't link to them here. Other than that point, this seems like a fine piece of work. Also, I'll make sure to leave December 12 open for you. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 23:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you take care of Giants' concern, as I'm likely to remain busy for the next two days? &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 10:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I'll do it. And, I know Vensatry has only used videos from verified YouTube channels. So they should pass WP:RS and not border on copyvio. Besides, I cannot currently check YouTube since it is blocked from where I'm editing, but I'll check tonight. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support – As long as both of you are confident about the status of the links, I'll assume good faith on the issue. That was my only concern, as the rest of the article looks solid to me. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 01:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comments from FrB.TG
 * "who has appeared in over 150 films" - I think it should be "more than 150 films" since the source says 158 films.
 * I go with you statement. I think "over" usually means significantly more than, Kailash29792 (talk) 09:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it makes a difference. Kailash29792, is it a rule? &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "He began his film career by" - I am sorry, did he appear in TV shows or theater plays, too?
 * Yes, he acted in plays before being cast in Apoorva Raagangal. Besides, I do not want to see the word "film" be overused. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you have misinterpreted my comment. I was rather asking for the usage of the word "film" in the sentence. Since there are no other works e.g. theater or television included in the list, I think there is no need for "film". And the same goes for my comment below. – FrB.TG (talk) 13:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * He started his career as: bus conductor-> theatre artist -> film actor. I know we're discussing about his filmography, but 'film' is certainly not redundant here. &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Is it necessary to say that he appeared in the cinema of the US. From the list, I can see that he had a role in only one English film.
 * I don't see any harm in including it. It was quite a news in South India then. &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 10:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You discuss the film later. I think that is enough, isn't it?
 * He is one of the few mainstream big names to act in a Hollywood film (before even Big B). So, it did create quite a buzz. As for "Rajinikanth has also worked in other film industries such as Bollywood, Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam, Bengali, and that of the United States.", the nominators have simply mentioned the film industries he worked in. —  Ssven2  Speak 2 me 13:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "Rajinkanth made his cinematic debut" - again, did he appear in TV shows or theater plays, too?
 * As I said above, he acted in theatrical plays before movies. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

That was for the first two paras. The rest for later. – FrB.TG (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Why do we need two references to cite the fact that he made his debut with Apoorva? Just the source from The Indian Express confirms everything. Except the director's name but I presume that might be cited in the list.
 * "He secured his first major" - too wordy. Perhaps "played", "had" or something similar?
 * "most of them—including" - the dash is quite unnecessary IMHO. Consider comma.
 * The dash was purposefully used there to avoid the over usage of commas. &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "in which he played a full-fledged lead role for the first time in his career" - two things. The word "full-fledged" in close proximity. Can be easily rephrased; perhaps "which marked his first lead role in his career"?
 * All your above comments have been resolved. —  Ssven2  Speak 2 me 12:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

And here is the rest:
 * I notice eight instances of the word "use" in a prose consisting of four paragraphs. Also do we need each of them; first comedy, first this, first that?
 * Vensatry and Kailash29792, I leave this to you guys. If you ask me, the "first" bit is necessary as most of these films are successful and are rated among his best. —  Ssven2  Speak 2 me 13:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You mean 'first'? Should be okay now. &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "with Rama Rao Tatineni's Andha Kanoon; it" - perhaps instead use a comma replacing "it" with "which"?
 * Do you see how repetitive the phrasing is? &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "Rajinikanth continued to act in more films in Bollywood, often playing supporting roles in films" - the word "film" in close proximity.
 * I would hyphenate highest grossing.
 * "he made a comeback" - consider "return" which can perhaps reduce size of the prose a bit.
 * "was paid ₹ 260 million" - why the space?
 * Is it "a dual role" or "dual roles"? Be consistent.
 * Do we need to wiki-link science fiction film? – FrB.TG (talk) 13:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * All your above comments have been resolved except where noted. —  Ssven2  Speak 2 me 13:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

And some more..
 * I see that highest grossing is hyphenated per my suggestion but it is still "went on to become the highest grossing Tamil" and "and is among the highest grossing Indian films of all time". Either dismiss my suggestion or adopt it in its entirety.
 * I see all the four paragraphs start with the actor's name. I know it is not a very big deal and quite common, but this IMO makes for repetitive prose and is best avoided.
 * Zee News is a channel that does not need italics.
 * Ref 35- I see publishers are linked every time. It should be no different here. – FrB.TG (talk) 08:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * All your above comments have been resolved. —  Ssven2  Speak 2 me 08:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Anything else, Frankie. :-) —  Ssven2  Speak 2 me 10:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * All my comments have been addressed. I would support this list, but I am a little bit uncomfortable about the the length but I don't see where it could be cut down. Maybe I am just not used to seeing a prose this long in a list. Anyway, you have enough supports for this so you should have no problem having this promoted. I look forward to the main page appearance of someone who is among the most well-known (if not the most) people in India. – FrB.TG (talk) 18:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Source Review


 * Formatting: the "chapter" abbreviations should be "ch.", or less commonly "chap.", not "chpt.", and the page numbers for ranges are "pp. 1–3" (note the ndash, not hyphen), not "1/3". If the page numbers are disjoint, it's "pp. 1, 3". If it's one page, it's "p. 1". So, "Ramachandran 2014, chpt. Superstar: 35/57." should instead be "Ramachandran 2014, ch. Superstar: pp. 35–57." Unless you have a style guide that says otherwise that you're following, but I've never seen formatting like that before.
 * Spotchecks passed, so just the formatting needs to be addressed. -- Pres N  20:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , I too am unsure what Vensatry meant by "x/x". I'd write "x-x" for two consecutive pages, and "x, x" for two disjoint pages. Besides, could you please do proofreading if possible? Kailash29792 (talk) 09:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The 'x/x' style is based on the ebook version. By 'x/x', it means a single page. As for 'chpt.' it's very much an acceptable form. See Template:Sfn &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 08:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link, ok, so "chpt" is fine then. Still confused on the 'x/x' thing - you mean, like, '23/27' means the 23rd out of 27 pages in that chapter? Because that would only be valid for your specific screen resolution- other sized screens would have a different number of pages in the chapter, so the page information would actually be misleading instead of helpful. If you don't have a way to get a standard page number for the "978-0-670-08620-7" book, then just leave it at the chapter name. -- Pres N  16:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's right. I guess has a hard copy of the book. Will wait for his response. &mdash; Vensatry  (talk) 08:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , check your talkpage. Kailash29792 (talk)  08:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've removed the page nos. As you say, the chapter names should suffice. &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 11:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, Source Review Passed -- Pres N  13:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Though I would like to see some red links blued.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I guess most of them are one-film wonders. &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

-- Pres N  04:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.